Friday, May 30, 2008

Jeffrey St. Clair provides the sausage-making details on the Clintons and the Marc Rich pardon (dealt with here). Rich, of course, is one of the largest funders of the extreme right-wing think tanks that provide the intellectual fuel for blood-dripping-from-the-fangs Ziofascism. The key player in the operation appears to be BethDozoretz. Denise Rich was friends with her (and a really good friend of Hillary). Timeclaims that it was Dozoretz who brought Denise into the picture (unlikely, as this appears to have been a two-pronged operation from the beginning, with both Dozoretz and Denise Rich having personal and financial connections to both Clintons). Dozoretz was key because she had become the main'bundler' of Jewish money to the Democrats after she rose to prominence after marrying a very rich Jewish land developer. Dororetz is seriously connected to the Clintons (both a 'Friend of Bill' and a 'Hillraiser'; Bill Clinton is her daughter's godfather), and is still one of the main conduits of Jewish Billionaire money to Clinton's campaign for the nomination, confirming my theory that the roots of Hillary Clinton's current political campaign, not to mention the roots of her lack of success, go back to the pardon of Marc Rich, and the dirty deals that were done for the Jewish Billionaires to obtain a very unlikely pardon of a very, very bad man.

Wednesday, May 28, 2008

They will have obtained two identical rifles (to avoid TSD-style controversy about the type of rifle found), keeping the receipt from the second rifle (bought at a gun shop in the area).

They will send a special invitation to the patsy, a white male from the South with three names, to attend a reception after the public rally.

At the rally, the sniper will blow Obama's head clean off. He will then head back to his jet to be flown back to the Homeland.

The patsy will find himself alone at the site of the 'reception', will be drugged, and eventually will be shot by authorities, 'resisting arrest' (they won't make the same mistake of allowing the patsy to leave the scene, and dead men can't defend themselves). The second rifle will be the 'throw down', placed by the authorities beside the patsy so the photos can show the assassin beside his gun. Later, the assassination rifle will be swapped for the throw down (so the ballistics will match), with the patsy's fingerprints applied to the sniper's rifle post mortem.

Although the patsy was liberal (being thrilled to obtain an invitation to an Obama reception), he will be described as a white supremacist, neo-Nazi, gun nut. None of his friends will be able to recall hearing him say one racist thing, and nobody will ever recall seeing him with a gun or even talking about guns. Nevertheless, the authorities will raid his house (described as a 'compound'), and will discover a huge cache of guns (including the receipt for the assassination rifle, although a later check of the surveillance tape at the gun shop will show that the video system was malfunctioning at the time the rifle was purchased), neo-Nazi regalia on the walls (a special touch for the people behind the assassination), and a collection of white supremacist literature.

Case closed. Of course, as the assassination may have to be performed at a location decided at the last minute, they would probably have to have an assortment of patsies, rifles etc., a set for each probable city.

There will be riots, and the authorities will get a chance to use their new round-up capabilities. The Democratic Party will be permanently destroyed (blacks and progressive whites will blame Hillary and the party establishment, and will never vote for the party again), and President McCain will be able to continue the Era of The Wars For The Jews, at least until the United States is utterly bankrupt, unable to even borrow the money to slaughter more Muslims in aid of the Zionist project.

Tuesday, May 27, 2008

Hillary arrived in the Senate in late 2000, helped out by a huge campaign chest and the fact that Giuliani backed out of the race with personal morality issues and a convenient prostrate problem. Her position in the Senate, where she established herself as a member of the More Wars For The Jews Party, was obviously intended to lead to her bid for the Presidency. Bill's last act as President, before they dragged him kicking and screaming from the White House, was to pardon Jewish Billionaire Marc Rich, a decision later portrayed as a mistake based on having too much to do at the end of his Presidency to realize the enormity of Rich's crimes (which tellingly in part involved financial dealings with Iran). Bill intends to return to the White House when Hillary becomes President. Was it all part of a deal, that the Jewish Billionaires would obtain the Presidency for Billary on condition that:

Bill pardon one of their own; and

Hillary vote in the Senate, and campaign as a Presidential nominee, as an unmistakable member of the More Wars For The Jews Party?

In return the Jewish Billionaires would:

keep Giuliani out of the Senate race;

fund the Senate race, and the race to be Presidential nominee;

provide the logistics for the race to be nominee;

turn the media coverage of Hillary in their controlled media properties completely around, and portray her as an effective Senator (although she wasn't) and a sympathetic nominee.

If this was the deal, it has been largely a tragedy for Hillary Clinton. She didn't need their money. She has been gravely damaged by her Jewish braintrust and their consistently stupid political decisions. While the highly favorable media coverage helped, she could have fought through the alternative, as her supporters would have accepted it as part of the vast right-wing conspiracy against her.

The fatal downside is the requirement of the Jewish Billionaires that she be a committed member of the More Wars For The Jews Party. Had she voted against the attack on Iraq, against the foul Kyl-Lieberman amendment (in retrospect, that was the vote that killed her chances), and against cluster bombs ( a big favorite amongst Jewish Billionaires for dropping on Muslim children), and campaigned as a No More Wars For The Jews Party member, she would have cleaned up on the nomination almost immediately, and people would be saying 'Obama who?' Her tragedy is that she didn't need the Jewish Billionaires, but their political requirements left an opening for a relatively obscure black man to accomplish what should have been impossible.

Monday, May 26, 2008

"I will admit to you that the reason I'm going ahead with this attempt now is because I cannot wait any longer to impress you. I've got to do something now to make you understand, in no uncertain terms, that I'm doing all of this for your sake! By sacrificing my freedom and possibly my life, I hope to change your mind about me."

If we ignore the conspiracy angles, and accept the Official Story, there are crazed loners out there, looking for a way to impress the object of their affection as she talks directly to them through their televisions. What could be a better token of affection?

Saturday, May 24, 2008

Ultra-Zionist wolf Jeffrey Goldberg, the kind of guy whose porno collection might very well consist of videos of IDF soldiers shooting Palestinian children in the face, temporarily dons the sheep's clothing of light-Zionism in order to ScareJew the Jewish Billionaires who are attacking Olmert by suddenly remembering cash payments they may have made to him a few years ago, memories suspiciously fueled by a fear in the settler movement that Olmert may be planning a deal with the Palestinians. By putting the existence of the settlements in play, Goldberg directly threatens the trophies of the Jewish Billionaires, and reflects the fear of World Jewry that the arrogance of a few of the Jewish Billionaires may threaten the 'special relationship' of the United States and Israel by removing Olmert at the very time that he is the only one capable of meeting Bush's demand of an agreement with the Palestinians prior to Bush leaving office. The fear is that Bush, and thus the United States, will be deeply embarrassed if there is no deal by next January. World Jewry doesn't actually fear the deal, as the concept of the 'shelf agreement' - have you noticed that all intellectual concepts from the United States are now, in some deep way, phony? - is the essence of a non-agreement agreement, but fears that the clumsy and obvious machinations of the Jewish Billionaires will have long-term effects on the friendliness of the United States towards Israel.

It is funny how the combination of Mearsheimer/Walt and Obama has caused a crisis in Zionism, requiring a temporary and tactical apparent retreat from its essential expansionism, at least until things can proceed as normal under President McCain or, after an RFK-style assassination, President Clinton. Goldberg even has to make the admission that the Lobby has massive power in the United States, an admission that was inconceivable until recently (maybe he will be good enough to tell Noam). One of the problems of the deceit of lite-Zionism is how easily it can be borrowed by the vilest of Zionists for their own evil purposes.

Thursday, May 22, 2008

Careful - careful enough to appear in The New Republic!- analysis of the problems with Hillary's campaign, using code words to explain that she lost because she refused to blunt the fact that she was running for the More Wars For The Jews Party. I think it is interesting that her campaign went sideways due to the fact that her handpicked - by the Jewish Billionaires who funded her - braintrust was emotionally and intellectually incapable of comprehending that Obama was winning largely because Americans wanted to have the opportunity to vote for a candidate from the No More Wars For The Jews Party (the code words are 'change', 'diplomacy', 'youth', etc). In fact, Clinton's Jewish braintrust was so clueless about the main issue of the campaign that they actually assumed that her inevitable win meant they could piggyback support for the More Wars For The Jews Party by having Clinton emphasize her adherence to the policies of that party, with her 'bomb, bomb Iran' vote being the icing on the Zionist cake. After she won, the spin would be that Americans really did support the concept of More Wars For The Jews. Obama's ace in the hole, and the reason why early polls show he has an excellent chance against McCain despite the race issue, is that he is running as the only possible candidate for the No More Wars For The Jews Party. The two-fer is that Americans can simultaneously throw off a large part of the shackles of two forms of racism at the same time, with the overcoming of anti-black racism coming as a result of the abhorrence of the effects on the future of the United States of the racism called Zionism.

For the same reason, Clinton would be the worst possible VP choice for Obama, as she would remove his huge competitive advantage by confusing the fact that he is running as a candidate for the No More Wars For The Jews Party. I know some people will not like this analysis, but if you ignore the main issue in the campaign you will end up in the same position as Clinton's political handlers, permanently discredited. Choosing Clinton would mean a win for McCain, and this one chance for the United States not to be completely fucked would be lost forever.

Wednesday, May 21, 2008

"In the last year the price of a barrel of oil has gone up by $45 or 65 per cent. It averaged $70 in 2007, while this year it is looks to average $115.

In Canada, as recently as 2003, the cost of producing a barrel of oil, including royalties, averaged only $5.57. Of course, that year Canadian royalties were again among the lowest in the world, 23 cents a barrel.

For natural resources, the difference between the cost of production, including normal profits and the selling price, represents the resource rent, a one-time benefit to the owners. If we assume the cost of production has nearly doubled since 2003, including small royalties increases in Alberta, the resource rent per barrel this year is $105.

This resource rent money has been treated as a windfall profit and has gone directly into the pockets of the oil producers. As many of them are foreign-owned, the profits go directly out of the country.

Since, under the constitution, the beneficial owners of the resources are the people of the provinces where the resources are located, the rent belongs to the people, and it should have subject to an excess profits tax. Indeed when the price of oil increased in the late 1970s, the Alberta government introduced just such a measure.

The logic is simple. If oil companies are making money at $70 a barrel, and through no action on their part, their price increases to $115 a barrel, why should they get to pocket the difference?"

and:

"The situation is similar to what happens in wartime. Some companies get rich producing war materials, while others pay the ultimate price fighting the war. Proceeds from excess profits taxes are used to pay for spousal veterans benefits."

The oil companies took no extra risk, expended no additional capital, and invented no new technology. It is as if it started to rain gold upon them, with the gold belonging to someone else. Even under the doctrines of the craziest turbo capitalist shill, there is no justification for this profit taking. They are just stealing money that belongs to the people. We need to tax this back, and I see no reason why the tax shouldn't be retroactive (if the companies scream poverty, the government can take payment in equity).

We really need two taxes, a profiteering tax, and the carbon tax (to cover the costs of the externalities that people don't pay when they buy hydrocarbons).

Sunday, May 18, 2008

"Born in Toronto to Russian and Ukrainian parents in 1914, the meanderings of this violinist-turned-revolutionary-cum-journalist-turned-businessman have made him a living relic.

He delivered hats off Wall Street during the Crash of '29, sipped coffee with George Orwell on Las Ramblas during the Spanish Civil War and stood guard over Trotsky's corpse in Mexico. He built homes in Toronto, edited his most recent book on economics a few months ago, and now spends his days practising his violin and readying for one final accomplishment."

and:

"By 1934, he was a radical and formed the League for Revolutionary Worker's Party, a group of Trotsky-inspired Marxist youth in Toronto.

While on a visit to Brussels in fall 1936, the prospect of 'seeing revolution in the streets' drew Krehm over the Pyrenees to Barcelona, where like-minded Trostkyites were fighting Stalin-backed republicans and Nazi-backed nationalists.

He remembers standing atop Mount Tibidabo, watching planes from the German Condor Legion speed overhead on a bombing run, and fondly recalls meeting George Orwell, who was there supporting the Trotskyites.

'He was very approachable,' Krehm says of his encounters with the famed novelist at a downtown café. 'He wasn't puffed up at all. He was having a hell of a time in Spain.'

Because of his links to Trotsky, Krehm chose not to join the 1,500 radicalized Canadian volunteers fighting with the International Brigades under the direction of Moscow.

'They would have slit my throat in no time at all. Trotskyites were sneered at by Stalinists, you see,' he says.

Barcelona was raided by Stalinists in spring 1937. Krehm and other Trotskyites were rounded up.

'Anyone with direct links to Trotsky was never seen again,' says Krehm, who counts himself luckier than most of his colleagues (including Orwell who, having been shot through the neck, barely got out of Spain alive).

Krehm spent several months in a crowded, plywood prison before a hunger strike resulted in his transfer to hospital.

He recovered and was released, or rather, 'stripped of my belongings and dumped into France' by communist forces, now losing their war against the fascists"

and:

". . . in Mexico he stayed, anchored by his political proclivities. Krehm tried to return to Canada to join the fight against fascism in Europe – World War II – but the United States would not permit him to cross its borders. He was stuck.

As it happens, he was there when his role model had his head run through with an ice pick. Feeling compelled to pay his respects to the man whose writings had influenced him, Krehm stood guard over Trotsky's body at his funeral.

Krehm soon landed a job with Time Magazine, covering a series of revolutions that broke out in Latin America during World War II.

But by 1947, with the Cold War heating up, his revolutionary past came back to haunt him.

'I ruffled some feathers,' he says, about his dispatches on American involvement in several coups in Latin America. He was fired by Time."

". . . Krehm became an entrepreneur, founding a property management company, O'Shanter, now owned and operated by his sons, Adam and Jonathan.

He retired from O'Shanter in the early 1980s and began writing again, this time on economics.

As co-founder of the Committee on Monetary and Economic Reform, an economics-oriented publishing house in Toronto, Krehm has written several works arguing against the government practice of combating inflation by increasing interest rates.

He says this has not only been detrimental to society, it runs counter to the Bank of Canada Act, which has been on the books since 1934."

Krehm is going to court to challenge the Bank Of Canada's low-inflation/high-unemployment policies. As a conspiracy theorist, I've always found it amazing that one of the biggest swindles in Canadian history, the elimination of statutory reserve requirements on Canadian banks, passed by essentially unnoticed in the early 90s, although it represented one of the biggest transfers of wealth in Canadian history. As soon as the reserve requirements were eliminated, the Canadian government was no longer able to access the statutory reserve requirement funds held in the Bank of Canada, and thus had to turn for borrowing to private banks. The Canadian banks then started making the annual billion dollar profits to which they have become accustomed. Here's Krehm, advising Canadian socialists (the NDP, hardly socialist anymore) by referring to the nationalization of the Bank of Canada in 1938 (for even bigger conspiracies involving the Bank for International Settlements, see here and here and here):

"That nationalization made possible the financing of a major part of the federal government’s capital projects with the Bank of Canada on a virtual interest-free basis. The money paid to the BoC as interest on such loans came back to the federal government as dividends. An essential part of the mechanism that made this possible were the statutory reserves that required the banks to redeposit with the BoC some 8% to 12% of the deposits received by banks from the public in chequing accounts.

These statutory reserves served two vital purposes: (1) they provided more elbow room for the federal government to finance its capital projects from the BoC within the constraints in force on an interest-free basis; and (2) they offered an alternative to raising the benchmark rate of interest set by the BoC for overnight loans between chartered banks to help them meet their cheque clearing obligations. Once these reserves were phased out over a two-year period in the 1991 revision of the Bank Act, higher interest rates became 'the one blunt tool' for 'controlling inflation.' The result: by the mid-1970s the Bank of Canada had held well over 20% of the federal debt. Within a few years it was down to almost 5%.

We note that the NDP did include bringing back the statutory reserves among its policy options. More than that, it is an absolute necessity to reverse the trend of Canadian politics towards disaster bred by greedy privilege.

The NDP could reclaim the traditions of Tommy Douglas, by proposing a gradual reintroduction of the statutory reserves, say over a three-year period. Neither the UK nor the US ended reserves as Canada and New Zealand did. In Britain they were simply reduced to 0.35 of one percent but are still on the books; in the US they also remain but have been reduced to irrelevance by the shifting of deposits from reservable accounts to non-reservable accounts at the close of bank hours, and back to reservable accounts when the banks open their doors again. Bringing the reserves back in Canada to their former levels over a two or three-year period would give the banks an ample opportunity to readjust to the return to a statutory reserve regime. This is of particular importance since the Bank of Canada is in the process of pushing up interest rates again despite the limp state of the economy."

There has apparently been a plan - dare I say 'conspiracy'? - to enrich the Canadian elites through the low-inflation/high-unemployment policies of the Bank of Canada (low inflation benefits wealth holders, whose assets are eroded by inflation, while high unemployment reduces the relative value of labor) started in the late 80s as explicit Bank of Canada policy, followed by the elimination of the statutory reserve requirements on the Canadian banks in the early 90s, leaving the Bank of Canada with no levers on the Canadian economy other than the manipulation of interest rates (prior to the elimination of statutory reserves, the Bank of Canada could manipulate the availability of bank borrowing, and thus influence the Canadian economy, by changing the statutory reserve requirements). This plan has been treated by the disgusting Canadian media as if it was just a slip of an accountant's pencil, but has resulted in the transfer of billions of dollars from the common property of Canadians to a select few elites.

I'm not a fan of the American right-wing conspiracy theories that some secret cabal of (no doubt Jewish) financiers is stealing Americans blind due to their ownership of the Federal Reserve. This kind of nonsense simply obscures the real conspiracies whereby public wealth is turned over to private hands. The Canadian decision to eliminate the statutory reserves is an example of a real conspiracy, identifiable by the combination of its massive importance coupled with the fact you never read anything about it. Krehm writes about the real conspiracies, including the relationship of the sub-prime crisis to the increased pool of assets available to banks for lending - at a multiple of the value of the assets, of course - due to the elimination of the 'financial pillars' as part of deregulation, the role of the Bank For International Settlements in freeing the banks to go crazy in their lending practices, and the decision by national governments in Canada and the United States to ignore depreciation of national infrastructure in order to make their books look better to facilitate more national borrowing from private banks. We are truly in an era of bankster privateers, and you have to dig hard to read about it anywhere.

"This week Israel's Military Intelligence Chief, Major General Amos Yadlin complained to the Israeli daily Haaretz that 'Hezbollah proved that it was the strongest power in Lebanon... stronger than the Lebanese and it had wanted to take the government it could have done it,' He said Hezbollah, continued to pose a 'significant' threat to Israel as its rockets could reach a large part of Israeli territory.'

Yadlin was putting it mildly.

But what Intelligence Chief Yadlin did not reveal to the Israeli public was just how 'significant' but also 'immediate' the Hezbollah threat was on May 11. Nor was he willing to divulge the fact that he received information via US and French channels that if the planned attack on Lebanon's capitol went forward that Tel Aviv was subject, in the view of the US intelligence community to 'approximately 600 Hezbollah rockets in the first 24 hours in retaliation and at least that number on the following day'.

The Israeli Intel Chief also declined to reveal that despite Israel's recent psyche-war camping about various claimed missile shields 'the State of Israel is perfecting', that this claim is being ridiculed at the Pentagon. 'Israel will not achieve an effective shield against the current generation of rockets, even assuming no technological improvements in the current rockets aimed at it, for another 20 years. And that assumes the US will continue to fund their research and development for the hoped for shields' according to Pentagon, US Senate Intelligence Committee, and very well informed Lebanese sources."

Rockets remain the key. It appears that the secret gifts that Bush brought to Israel are supposed to be part of a missile defense shield, although we also know that Israel has already wisely rejected American technology in this area. Americans have spent hundreds of billions of dollars definitively proving they are incapable of shooting down an intercontinental rocket they have hours to prepare for, even when the rockets contain American homing devices, so the concept of American technology stopping rockets fired from next door is a joke. In other words the secrecy of the gifts is part of the trick being played by the IDF/Settler Movement (same thing) on the people of Israel, the idea that a new illegal war against a neighbor is still possible because Israel has some miraculous missile defense shield up its sleeve.

I doubt the rest of Lamb's thesis - that there was a propaganda attack planned on Beirut to coincide with Bush's visit - as the timing is all wrong, nobody paying attention would count on Hezbollah losing the confrontation with the silly Lebanese government, and it is senseless to run the risk of making Israel an unsafe place for Bush to visit at the time he had to visit. On the other hand, the neocons have proven themselves to be at least as incompetent as treasonous (Abrams last brilliant Lebanese plan has resulted in Hezbollah being proven to be the only real power in Lebanon, destroyed the credibility of the old government, sided the Lebanese military against the old government, and broken the political logjam in Lebanon, a simply amazing demonstration of neocon befuddlement), so anything is possible.

Wednesday, May 14, 2008

Be very careful of this famous report in the New York Times (naturally) on how the Pentagon was financially and logistically behind the so-called 'objective' analysts on the Iraq war who pontificated in the mainstream media (see also here and here). It shouldn't be a surprise that the Pentagon has its own pro-war propaganda department. The NYT studiously avoids discussing the most important advocates of the war and its conduct, the neocons, paid for out of think tanks financed by the Jewish Billionaires. The Times is part of the neocon campaign to whitewash the fact that the attack on Iraq was, fundamentally, a War For The Jews. The whitewash is intended to clean up the reputation of the neocons by shifting the entire blame for the war onto the Pentagon. The neocons will then be free to begin a new campaign of advocacy and lying to lead to More Wars For The Jews under President McCain.

A very rare instance, using coded wording, of the real reason why Obama beat Clinton. It will be interesting to see if American racists who would never vote for a black man will vote for Obama in order to avoid the stark horror of being forced to fight More Wars For The Jews. It is an amazing election: if American racists can do the right thing, which would have a long-term massive effect on racial attitudes in the United States (not to mention elsewhere), they could avoid the disaster of More Wars For The Jews. Otherwise, the United States is completely fucked.

Israel's 60th has turned into a PR disaster, with the plight of the Palestinians, for the first time ever, making it into the mainstream media. Rick Salutin reflects on the mythical nature of the ScareJew (my emphasis in red):

"Something that struck me was the fairly narrow notion of Jewish experience outside Israel, in the Diaspora, that was implied. A Toronto prof. quoted in The Post, said: 'Everything they do to us ... strengthens our deep-seated perception that fuels our identity of being a persecuted people.' This rings true to me not as how things are, but as how many Canadian Jews see them. I have friends and relations, often wealthy and accomplished people, who feel anti-Semitism is always imminent, though they've rarely or never experienced it. It shapes their attitude toward Israel as the only refuge for Jews, and makes them less willing to hear criticisms of it than most Israelis are. It seems to me irrational and I wish I understood it better.

When we were kids in the 1950s, we studied a book called Sufferance is the Badge, based on Shylock's line, 'Sufferance is the badge of all our tribe.' It interpreted Jewish history as a tale of torment. But that was in the shadow of the Holocaust. When I was married in my 20s, my mother-in-law did a painting in her art class that showed religious Jews clutching Torah scrolls as they fled. Their beards and prayer shawls streamed behind. My father-in-law, a manufacturer, called it caustically, The Jews Running. I think he meant it was sentimentalized and overstated, and he wasn't buying that version of our past, at least not outright.

All this resonated in the aftermath of Hitler, and was helpful in raising support for the fragile state of Israel. But, at bottom and for understandable reasons, it distorted two millennia of Jewish history that were rich and complex. Almost all Jewish literary and intellectual accomplishment occurred in the Diaspora. There were golden ages of relative integration, along with expulsions and pogroms. That's a big chunk of time. Crisis comes and goes in all collective and individual lives. Jews prayed for a return to Zion, but only in the messianic future that God alone would bring about. Anyone who tried to 'force the end,' was considered a heretic. They didn't just make do in the Diaspora; they settled in and often thrived.

It seems to me that a more nuanced, positive view of the Diaspora might open many Jews to a different relationship to Israel, in which they felt freer to offer criticism. It would also correspond better to their real lives. And it would fit the increasingly diasporic nature of a globalized world."

When I get around to finishing my 'A psycho-sexual history . . . ' I'll have an entirely new spin on the mythology of the ScareJew. Good as Salutin is, he is still pushing the standard mythology.

The Americans - no doubt through Abrams, blood dripping from his enormous fangs, glistening in the moonlight - tired to pull another trick in Lebanon, having their stooge government pick a fight with Hezbollah in an attempt to dismantle the communications system that allowed Hezbollah to so easily beat Israel in the shitty little county's last illegal attack on the people of Lebanon. Once the communications system was gone, the shitty little country would no doubt try again. The people of Lebanon are no doubt wondering why their own government would be behind an attempt to dismantle the communications network that prevented half their country from being taken by Israel. Hezbollah immediately put on a demonstration of strength so compelling that even the Lebanese army was impressed, to the extent that it is attempting to broker a peace between the powerless central government and Hezbollah. Another embarrassing defeat for the Americans, oddly paralleling a similar defeat in Iraq, where the Americans have for the second time been bailed out by Iran from a hopeless attempt at sicking its stooge Iraqi government on the Shi'ite militias in Baghdad. Neocons notwithstanding, the Americans and Iranians are headed to a de facto power sharing arrangement in both Lebanon and Iraq (although portraying Hezbollah as merely being a stooge of Iran is unfair to Hezbollah). The Iranian-American liaison has become so obvious that it has become a political issue in Iran! Real American interests are to cooperate with Iran; More Wars For The Jews Party interests are the opposite. It is a stark contrast.

Friday, May 09, 2008

Obama built up his insurmountable lead over Clinton because he was the only candidate for the No More Wars For The Jews Party. Clinton had been able to build a tiny bit of momentum after Pennsylvania. Why then did she court disaster by reminding the voters of North Carolina and Indiana that she was the candidate for the More Wars For The Jews Party by raising the issue of the obliteration of Iran? Suddenly, Americans were reminded of why Obama built up his big lead. Obama jumped on her mistake, and pointed out that diplomacy is always better than nuclear obliteration (this is a key change in American policy, recognized even by the American intelligentsia, but one completely unacceptable to the Jewish Billionaires, who realize that diplomacy means that Israel would have to negotiate away the territory it illegally has stolen, and intends to steal). Americans don't want to fight More Wars For The Jews, and Americans who wouldn't vote for a black man voted for Obama because they correctly saw him as the only escape from the utter ruination of their country under the weight of More, and More, and More, and More Wars For The Jews. The only plausible reason why Clinton blundered so badly is that the Jewish Billionaires who own her told her to. 'Obliterate' comes directly from her Jewish braintrust.

The Jewish Billionaires are really starting to throw their weight around by promising to obliterate the Democratic party if they don't get their More Wars For The Jews candidate:

"In a heated phone call with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi late last month, Hillary Clinton supporter Harvey Weinstein threatened to cut off campaign money to congressional Democrats unless Pelosi embraced a new plan by the movie mogul to finance a revote of the Democratic presidential primaries in Florida and Michigan, according to three officials who were briefed on the contents of the conversation."

"Hillary Clinton’s campaign aides admitted Thursday they were consulted by their big donors before the group sent a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi containing a veiled threat that she would risk their financial support unless she reversed her view that superdelegates should follow the will of voters."

The Clinton's have 'lent' their campaign millions. This is serious money from them, but petty cash for the Jewish Billionaires (about what they spend in a week on bullets so the IDF can shoot Palestinian children in the face), who no doubt will quietly write a check if Hillary continues to spout More Wars For The Jews propaganda. They really do own her. Americans know it, which is why a black man really does have a chance to be President.

Thursday, May 08, 2008

Uruknet continues to have trouble with Google News (there is a link to a complaint form to fill out). It is funny how a corporation can make its billions based on strict adherence to objectivity - let the algorithms do the work - and then immediately fall into a culture of decadence once the money and power pile up. The math has been replaced by Zionism (if you don't think it is Zionism, see here). How long will it be before the stock market notices?

Luis Posada Carriles is publicly celebrated in Miami. I know there are people in the American government who are concerned about how much this case makes a mockery of America's purported following of Bibi Netanyahu's 'war on terror'.

"There are plenty of worthy arguments to be made correlating the rise of business school culture with the decline of the our economy." I remember I used to have a debate with a co-worker about whether getting an MBA made you dumber, or whether only dumb people decided to get MBAs. We never did figure it out.

Wednesday, May 07, 2008

The neocons have spent the last months licking their wounds, and are now ready to retake their rightful place running American foreign and military policy solely for the interests of the Israeli Settler Movement, either under President McCain, or, however unlikely, President Clinton. The time has come to lie about the Wars For The Jews, in order to prep the way for more Wars For The Jews. There are three main neocon lies about the Judeo-American Holocaust on the people of Iraq and other peoples of the Middle East:

The bad intelligence about Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction is entirely the fault of the CIA (and even better, that the faulty American intelligence gathering means that current American intelligence concerning Iran is to be ignored in favor of more Israeli-neocon lies);

The conduct of the occupation of Iraq has been a total failure only because the American Establishment failed to follow the wonderful advice of the neocons; and

The Pentagon signed on to the complete program of Wars For The Jews, only the first part of which was the Judeo-American Holocaust on the people of Iraq.

The first lie is so preposterous I hardly need deal with it, other than to point out the leaning on the CIA by Dick Cheney until the CIA came out with the required results, with all the qualifications swept under the rug by the neocons. Jim Lobe neatly deals with the second lie.

Unfortunately, and again demonstrating the dangers of the silliness which I like to call 'Iran talk' (btw, Iran is now in less danger of attack from the United States than it has been during the entire Bush Administration, and a big collateral advantage of the 'Iran talk' is that it has forced Iran closer to Russia, China, and India), Gareth Porter swallows the third lie hook, line and sinker, thus helping Feith spin his propaganda message. Obviously, the neocons want to continue their program of Wars For The Jews, and want it to appear that the Pentagon is completely in agreement with the campaign. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Pentagon is in the business of fighting wars, and was enthusiastic about the attack on Iraq, but has shown no appetite for more wars unless and until the United States stabilizes its occupation of Iraq. Senior American military officials are worried about permanent long-term damage to the American military unless something is done to provide some respite from the constant, and hopeless, war effort.

Note how Porter carries the water for Feith. Wolfowitz wrote a program of Wars For The Jews, extending to just about every potential dead Muslim in the Middle East, for Rumsfeld. Read Porter carefully. The only connection to the Pentagon generals Shelton, Meyers and Abizaid is through the say-so of Feith. You may remember the recent story of how Feith tricked Meyers into thinking Feith was supporting the Geneva Conventions, when he was actually completely undermining them, to the great peril of American soldiers from now until the end of time (of course Feith doesn't care about the plight of soldiers of a foreign country, his loyalty extending only to his own country of Israel). There is no evidence, other than from Feith, that the Pentagon ever agreed to the full program of Wars For The Jews, and the idea that it would is both preposterous on the face of it, and contradicted by the statements of senior Pentagon officials. Unfortunately, the 'Iran talkers' like Feith's lies, and so work to spread them. Porter should be ashamed of himself.

Tuesday, May 06, 2008

It is heartening that no reputable commentator on this matter, or even most of the disreputable writers in the mainstream press, accepts this as a real suicide.

Both she and her former employee, Brandy Britton, allegedly hung themselves, an unusual way for females to commit suicide. She was found in an aluminum shed attached to her mother's mobile home. You need something to attach a rope to, enough space for the rope to hang to a noose, and enough space for something to stand on which you then kick away. Was there enough height? She was, according to the additions to the letter to her mother, and if you accept the genuineness of the letter (see below), alive to the idea of botching it. Would she feel confident that the shed roof would support her weight? I also find it odd that she would kill herself in a place where her mother was likely to be the one who discovered her.

The suicide notes are convincing, but they would be. The full extent of forensic document examination apparently consisted in asking mother and sister if that was her handwriting. The authorities had seized a lot of material from her as part of their criminal investigation, material which would presumably include examples of her distinctive handwriting - watch for hip ads in the new 'Palfrey' typeface - and personal information which would allow them to create plausible letters, down to the passive-aggressive tone of the letter to her sister. Note the use of the term 'exit strategy', common coin these days in Washington political and military circles, but an odd way to describe leaving your own life.

I've spent a lot of time describing what she had to do to stay alive, and she didn't do any of it. Publishing the phone lists was baffling. It angered official Washington, but didn't contain enough material to prove she could seriously threaten the elites if she had to. The court ran over her like a steamroller (while carefully avoiding the issue of who her clients were), and she was left all alone, with no obvious structure in place to release the damning information should she mysteriously pass away. Failure to pay attention to the details led directly to her death. It is likely that official Washington decided she was bluffing all along - it is one thing to have big name clients, but another to have a paper trail that proves it - and decided to kill her as a warning to the 'service industry' that blackmail will not be tolerated, at least not that kind of blackmail.

Dan Moldea, one of my least favorite writers on things conspiratorial, is the sole source for the idea that she was open to the idea of suicide rather than going to jail. Neither her mother nor her condo manager thought she was in the least bit suicidal. Even though the letter to her mother was dated a week before she died, she had been ensuring with staff at the condo just before she died that the condo fees would continue to be paid while she was in prison. The United States is a country where you can make a pretty good living with a juicy story, and she had one of the juiciest stories around.

Timeline: April 24, suicide note; April 28, forward-looking conversations with building manager and condo staff; May 1, 'suicide'.

Sunday, May 04, 2008

I receive an enormous amount of criticism for my use of the phrases 'wars for the Jews' and 'Jew-controlled media'. Most of it is malicious, either covert Zionists reacting to the truth, or 'progressives' trying to prove their own purity by slurring others. Ironically, the worst offenders are those who are really anti-Semites themselves, or at least those who would be so described by Zionists. Who are you trying to kid?

I also receive well-meaning criticism. This takes a number of forms. Some people genuinely believe that these terms are wrong, or at least misleading. Some feel that this frankness is a tactical error, causing a reaction in the wider community which will not lead to peace. Others feel that truth-telling leads to an unnecessary ostracism in the 'mainstream' community, and that this blog would have a wider reach if I could just learn to live with lying a little! Perhaps the most telling, and saddest, aspect of this issue is that the only real discussion of these problems in the entire internet takes place in the comments section to this blog. Otherwise, you have to fight through the competing fogs of the bullshit of the neo-Nazis and the bullshit of the slurring 'progressives' trying to prove something to themselves.

This takes us to a consideration of what blogging is really all about, and the necessity to tell the truth above all. There hasn't been anything like blogging since people nailed anonymous political screeds to the doors of churches. In the modern era, we lost the ability to tell each other the truth until blogging came along (which is why the Zionists, amongst others, are hell bent on censoring the internet). The catch is that you have to be scrupulous in telling the truth, no matter how unpopular. I have a very elitist attitude towards the truth. Only a small number of people are going to get it. Trying to lie to appeal to a wider audience will not only fail, it will be counterproductive. If I want to read lies, I read the mainstream press, or the mainstream blogs. I'm a lowly meme producer, influencing the world, in my tiny way, by striking the sparks of truth. The fire comes much later.

The truth, which is very simple, very obvious, and yet so very hard to accept, is that the diaspora Jewish communities in the English-speaking world, even the most assimilated members of those communities, hold a consistently irrational attitude towards the idea of Jewishness, and the institution of the State of Israel, and the concept of Greater Israel, in representing and protecting Jewishness. Although nothing could be more obvious, this simple truth appears to be impossible to accept for many people, even though it forms the basis of the current problems in the Middle East. The problem extends far beyond the advocates of the Settler Movement, the Zionists, or the neocons, which is why I continue to insist on the importance of telling the truth in using the terms 'wars for the Jews' and 'Jew-controlled media'.

I still have an obligation to explain myself. This is the first of two parts, the second of which will be called 'A Psycho-Sexual History of the Wars for the Jews'.

Thursday, May 01, 2008

The government of Dubai, respecting requests for a boycott of international pariah Lev Leviev, is refusing to let him peddle his blood diamonds, the profit of which is used to buy Palestinian blood, in Dubai. The call for boycotts works. Lev isn't the only offender. We should be calling for boycotts of the businesses of all Jewish Billionaires, unless and until they can prove that all their charitable contributions go to Palestinian relief. Fat chance! We know where their blood money is flowing.